Ross J. Belcastro – 3/1/09

This page was last updated on March 1, 2009.

High-speed rail would aid economy; Ross J. Belcastro; Beaver County Times; March 1, 2009.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“I don’t believe that the government bailout is going to put people back to work and is what we need to turn the economy around.

“With full employment, you have more people buying everything — homes, cars and everything else. In Europe and Asia, they have high-speed rail systems. Why not the United States?”

[RWC] What does “full employment,” which we had as recently as 2007, have to do with “high-speed rail systems?”

As for the comparison with Europe and Asia, we’re a lot more spread out. True high-speed rail is practical (read: cost-effective) only when there is large amount of passenger traffic between large population centers in relatively close proximity. It’s the same reason subways make sense only in large cities; they’re enormously expensive and require huge ridership to cover the costs.

FYI, we already have high-speed passenger rail service (Acela, run by Amtrak) in the Washington, DC, to Boston corridor. The Boston/Washington run is about seven hours. That’s several hours longer than a plane flight even when you factor in getting to the airport a couple of hours early. On top of that, plane tickets are frequently cheaper and the planes tend to run more frequently.

“Put people back to work by investing in the railroad. Forget about the lobbyists in Congress who are paid by car, gas and airline companies to keep the railroads down.”

[RWC] Who “keep[s] the railroads down?” Taxpayers subsidize passenger rail travel via Amtrak and the freight railroads are privately owned and profitable.

“The jobs you would create would make up for the lost jobs in other areas, and for the investment the government makes it could take a percentage of profit.”

[RWC] The “the government … could take a percentage of profit?” Amtrak – the federal government-run and owned passenger railroad – provides most if not all U.S. intercity passenger service and operates at a loss ($1 billion in 2007). Why on Earth would we want to throw even more money down this money loser?

“This would get a lot of tractor trailers off our roads so the roads don’t deteriorate as fast. You also could get some cars off the roads.”

[RWC] Has Mr. Belcastro been watching freight trains passing through Beaver County? They are going just about non-stop and many of them already carry the trailers Mr. Belcastro wants to take off the roads.

“In the end result, you also give the people a competitive means of high-speed travel instead of just the airlines.”

[RWC] If high-speed passenger rail service were competitive, why wouldn’t evil, profit hungry capitalists build it?

As for competing with the airlines, I suspect the only effect would be on relatively short flights. Regardless of how fast the train is, a business traveler isn’t going to take a train when a plane can get him to his destination faster. “Time is money” isn’t just a saying.